> The deference to an algorithm may weaken the agency’s internal accountability, by attributing decisions to a less explainable machine. On the long run this co

> The deference to an algorithm may weaken the agency’s internal accountability, by attributing decisions to a less explainable machine. On the long run this could affect the effectiveness of enforcement. I would argue not just the effectiveness but also the political acceptance of any enforcement and thus the existence of the state. Benefits as the plaything for politicians are an incredible and seemingly ever growing pile of sometimes contradictory, hindering or impossible to follow rules. Computers as humans will fail to implement them. The best we can do (besides thinking before writing rules) is to surround the rule application with layers of escalation to deal with the fallout and provide feedback paths to fix widespread or egregious failures. The unwillingness to monitor and fix failures is what made it a scandal. The economies of scale in computer applications made it a big one.